HB 3809 creates a new Chapter 303 in the Texas Utilities Code governing agreements for battery energy storage facilities leased on private land. The bill requires those agreements to spell out the grantee’s responsibility to remove the facility when operations end, including removal of batteries, transformers, substations, overhead lines, buried cables, and certain foundations, with soil restoration requirements after excavation. It also requires the grantee to handle reuse, recycling, or lawful disposal of facility components, including hazardous and nonhazardous materials, and sets deadlines for the landowner to request certain restoration work after notice of permanent shutdown or decommissioning.
The bill further requires battery energy storage facility agreements to include financial assurance to secure decommissioning and restoration obligations. Acceptable assurance can include a parent guaranty, letter of credit, bond, or another form acceptable to the landowner, and the amount must cover estimated removal, recycling/disposal, and restoration costs minus salvage value and pledged debt value. The estimates must be prepared by a licensed Texas professional engineer and updated periodically, and the assurance must remain in place until the removal obligations are completed or replacement assurance is provided.
HB 3809 also addresses battery storage facilities that are part of wind or solar power facility agreements under existing Chapters 301 and 302, requiring those agreements to include the same recycling/disposal provisions and to have sufficient financial assurance for those obligations. The bill voids any contractual waiver of the chapter’s protections and allows injunctive relief and other remedies for violations. Its provisions apply only to agreements entered into on or after September 1, 2025, leaving existing agreements governed by prior law.
The bill’s impact is to impose statewide minimum decommissioning, recycling, restoration, and financial-security standards on private battery energy storage leases, shifting more of the end-of-life risk and cost to facility operators rather than landowners. It affects landowners, battery storage developers and operators, lenders, and, in some cases, wind and solar project owners that co-locate battery storage. By setting mandatory contract terms and financial assurance requirements, it likely standardizes cleanup expectations and reduces the chance that landowners are left with abandoned equipment or unpaid remediation costs.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The recorded votes were overwhelmingly unanimous in both chambers, with no recorded opposition on the major passage votes and only one present-not-voting member in the House. There is no committee transcript indicating debate or dissent, suggesting broad agreement on the need for clearer decommissioning rules for battery storage facilities.
The main point of potential contention is the cost and administrative burden placed on developers and operators, especially the requirement for substantial financial assurance and periodic third-party engineering estimates. Landowners, however, are protected by mandatory cleanup provisions and the ability to request additional restoration work. Another possible issue is how the bill interacts with existing wind and solar lease structures and whether landowners will accept the financial assurance forms offered, but the bill’s text leaves those arrangements largely to contract terms within the new statutory floor.
HB 3809 adds Chapter 303 to the Texas Utilities Code and creates mandatory contractual and financial-assurance requirements for battery energy storage facility agreements on private land. It requires removal, recycling/disposal, and site-restoration obligations, and it extends similar requirements to wind and solar agreements that include battery storage. The bill applies prospectively only to agreements entered into on or after September 1, 2025, and it voids contractual waivers of the chapter’s protections while authorizing injunctive and other remedies.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little visible controversy. It passed the House and Senate with overwhelming margins and no recorded nay votes on the key passage votes. The absence of committee transcript debate in the provided materials also suggests the measure was viewed as a practical cleanup and landowner-protection bill rather than a contentious policy change.
The most notable tension is between landowner protection and developer cost. The bill requires operators to pay for removal, recycling, disposal, restoration, and ongoing financial assurance, which could increase project costs and financing complexity. Landowners and rural property owners are likely to favor the added cleanup guarantees, while battery storage developers, lenders, and project owners may be concerned about the size, timing, and form of the required assurance and the periodic engineering estimates. A secondary issue is how the new rules interact with existing wind and solar lease agreements that add battery storage.